New concept in digicams?

[Ole]

Mike Johnston speculates in his August 4 column "Photokina 2002 and the Olydak" ( http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/08042002.html ) about how a future SLR should function. Does it need a reflex mirror? Is it necessary, when you can read off the ccd itself?

Sharp has announced a new product: Sharp VL-DD10, which is a big LCD screen on which you can attach either a digical (4 MP) camera or a videocamera ( http://www.digit.no/Nyheter/Kameraer/ny_sharp_vldd10-filer/ny_sharp_vldd10.htm ). (Or even a tv-tuner!).

It will be interesting to see how the Sharp-contraption performs in test when and if it reaches so far. It is supposed to be released in August this year.

But the Idea is interesting: Instead of thinking af a SLR with interchangeable lenses you could have a body with swivel screen (someting like a G2) to which you could attach all sorts of lenses: A compact wide angle for the pocketable carry along camera, and big zoms (with manual zoom rings!) for sports etc. It would have the features of a SLR but could work without the need for a mecanical mirror, which means smaller, lighther and less noicy than a SLR.
--
Ole

 

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi Ole,

This looks like an interesting piece of equipment. Having a modular system with a screen to which you can attach modular units will be useful. I wonder how the current SLR crowd will react though? Depending on the module that you attach there is no reason why the final output could not be as good as a current DSLR camera, it's the chip and lenses that count right?
Maybe not. There are a few snags with having an LCD screen and a module;

1. Some people hate to use an LCD screen to frame their images. They are difficult to see in bright sunlight and are difficult to manually focus the lens accurately.

2. Ergonomics - how comfortable would it be to hold, aim and focus using a manual focus ring on the lens.

3. To attach a DSLR module with a "sensible" SLR quality lens would probably mean that the module would be nearly as big and heavy as a current DSLR body. That would negate any advantages.
4. How robust will an LCD screen that size be in the field?

I agree with Mike Johnston that the next generation of digital cameras do not need to look like current DSLRs or even need a reflex mirror but I don't think that this unit or even the EVF viewfinder is the best way. I tried the Minolta and hated the EVF because the problems that Mike reports. I have owned the Olympus Digitals - C1400L, C2500L and E-20 over the last five years and I think the split-beam prism with a standard viewfinder would be the best way (for me anyway).

I don't think this new Sharp unit would suit the point-and-shoot brigade either, it's too big and heavy, they need something small that can fit in a shirt pocket.

It will be interesting to see how it is accepted when (if) it ever reaches the marketplace but sorry, not for me.

Regards,

Andy.

Mike Johnston speculates in his August 4 column "Photokina 2002 and
the Olydak" ( http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/08042002.html )
about how a future SLR should function. Does it need a reflex
mirror? Is it necessary, when you can read off the ccd itself?
Sharp has announced a new product: Sharp VL-DD10, which is a big
LCD screen on which you can attach either a digical (4 MP) camera
or a videocamera

( http://www.digit.no/Nyheter/Kameraer/ny_sharp_vldd10-filer/ny_sharp_vldd10.htm ). (Or even a tv-tuner!).
It will be interesting to see how the Sharp-contraption performs in
test when and if it reaches so far. It is supposed to be released
in August this year.
But the Idea is interesting: Instead of thinking af a SLR with
interchangeable lenses you could have a body with swivel screen
(someting like a G2) to which you could attach all sorts of lenses:
A compact wide angle for the pocketable carry along camera, and big
zoms (with manual zoom rings!) for sports etc. It would have the
features of a SLR but could work without the need for a mecanical
mirror, which means smaller, lighther and less noicy than a SLR.
--
Ole

 

[Ole]

Hi Andrew

Of course you are right in many of your worries! On the other hand: 40 years ago the Rolleiflex was the camera most used by the gentlemen from the Press. It offered waist level viewing and focusing. For critical focusing and to keep sunlight from the screen you could raise a magnifying glass and peep down on the matt screen. The very professional Hasselblad and Bronica picked up the format introducing interchangeable lenses for the middle format. Also came the eyelevel attachment wich was a system of mirrors also corecting the left-right reversed screen. An electronic screen will not have that problem. If you are a tall person like I am it is often a problem with raising the camera to my eye simply because it is difficult to do without every body notising!

If we think of totally rethinking a modular construction of a multipurpose dicigal camera the starting point should of course be a house with a very good picture garthering screen of whatever migth be the best (ccd, Foveon or whatever). The autofocus could be build into that house shifting the screen instead of moving the lens elements. This basic module is of course egonomically well designed. Add to that batteries, storing devise, viewing screen or eye level sighting devise - and lenses not to forget.

Compact, ligth weight and fast lenses build for the purpose - or via adapters almost any other lens ever made for cameras.

Probably not the camera for the casual snapshooter, but fun for a lot of dedicated amateurs and professionals.
Ole

Hi Ole,

This looks like an interesting piece of equipment. Having a modular
system with a screen to which you can attach modular units will be
useful. I wonder how the current SLR crowd will react though?
Depending on the module that you attach there is no reason why the
final output could not be as good as a current DSLR camera, it's
the chip and lenses that count right?
Maybe not. There are a few snags with having an LCD screen and a
module;
1. Some people hate to use an LCD screen to frame their images.
They are difficult to see in bright sunlight and are difficult to
manually focus the lens accurately.
2. Ergonomics - how comfortable would it be to hold, aim and focus
using a manual focus ring on the lens.
3. To attach a DSLR module with a "sensible" SLR quality lens would
probably mean that the module would be nearly as big and heavy as a
current DSLR body. That would negate any advantages.
4. How robust will an LCD screen that size be in the field?
I agree with Mike Johnston that the next generation of digital
cameras do not need to look like current DSLRs or even need a
reflex mirror but I don't think that this unit or even the EVF
viewfinder is the best way. I tried the Minolta and hated the EVF
because the problems that Mike reports. I have owned the Olympus
Digitals - C1400L, C2500L and E-20 over the last five years and I
think the split-beam prism with a standard viewfinder would be the
best way (for me anyway).
I don't think this new Sharp unit would suit the point-and-shoot
brigade either, it's too big and heavy, they need something small
that can fit in a shirt pocket.
It will be interesting to see how it is accepted when (if) it ever
reaches the marketplace but sorry, not for me.

Regards,

Andy.

 

[SeanU]

Olympus has already used a prism in the E-10/E-20 to allow an optical TTL viewfinder that provides a live CCD image. This seems to be the best compromise. The camera is also very quiet because there is no mirror to move. The downside is that the viewfinder is not as bright as a traditional SLR and light can leek into the system through the eyepiece (there is a switch to close the eyepiece). There will always be people who prefer a bright optical viewfinder over an electronic one.

 

[Andrew Harvey]

Yes, I'm one of those people. I don't find the viewfinder too dark at all though, what I did miss (at first) was a proper Fresnel type split-ring focusing screen. This is not a failing in the prism type of viewfinder, it is a failing by Olympus in the design of the E10/20 - you get used to it so it's not a problem and is still far superior to the EVF system. The light leakage is only a problem when you are using the camera remotely and you don't have your eye to the viewfinder, no problem to close the eyepiece shutter.

Andy.

Olympus has already used a prism in the E-10/E-20 to allow an
optical TTL viewfinder that provides a live CCD image. This seems
to be the best compromise. The camera is also very quiet because
there is no mirror to move. The downside is that the viewfinder is
not as bright as a traditional SLR and light can leek into the
system through the eyepiece (there is a switch to close the
eyepiece). There will always be people who prefer a bright optical
viewfinder over an electronic one.

 

[SeanU]

Andy,

I agree about the manual focus on the E-10. I would have used it more if there was a better aid. I now have a D100, and still no better focusing screen (the viewfinder is brighter though). I only lost a few shots to light leakage...and it wasn't a big issue for me. I also will never use a camera with an EVF. My E-10 is up for sale... but I am going to miss it.

Sean

Yes, I'm one of those people. I don't find the viewfinder too dark
at all though, what I did miss (at first) was a proper Fresnel type
split-ring focusing screen. This is not a failing in the prism type
of viewfinder, it is a failing by Olympus in the design of the
E10/20 - you get used to it so it's not a problem and is still far
superior to the EVF system. The light leakage is only a problem
when you are using the camera remotely and you don't have your eye
to the viewfinder, no problem to close the eyepiece shutter.

Andy.

 

[Matthew Cromer]

The EFV gives you a TTL, dynamic view of the image, including white balance, exposure, and DOF (which unlike DOF preview is not so dark as to be unusable).

With some more resolution, a "high gain" mode and some internal magnifier for focusing aid, the EVF will be completely superior to an optical viewfinder in just about every respect. Already it is superior in some respects.

Plus the EFV can provide a much better heads-up platform for displaying camera settings.

If you want to deprive yourself of those advances today and in the future, and if in 5 years they still make digital cameras with optical viewfinders, good luck to you.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

 

[SeanU]

the evf is cr*p compared to a camera like the e-10/20 optical finder/lcd combo. I can get the best of both worlds with that camera. Other slrs have no live preview, but its no big loss for me.

The EFV gives you a TTL, dynamic view of the image, including white
balance, exposure, and DOF (which unlike DOF preview is not so dark
as to be unusable).

Its not TTL, its through the lens,ccd,electronics and small lcd.

With some more resolution, a "high gain" mode and some internal
magnifier for focusing aid, the EVF will be completely superior to
an optical viewfinder in just about every respect. Already it is
superior in some respects.

except 1... seeing the scene exactly as it looks to your eye.

Plus the EFV can provide a much better heads-up platform for
displaying camera settings.

If you want to deprive yourself of those advances today and in the
future, and if in 5 years they still make digital cameras with
optical viewfinders, good luck to you.

I will "deprive" myself of the amazing evf, today and 5 years from now, and I will continue to see the light that enters the lens. Good luck to you as well.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

 

[Leo]

The EVF concept works for me. I woud not purchase a camera without EVF in the future. An image looks great with of 180-220 k pixels. It is OK even with 114K
Leo

The EFV gives you a TTL, dynamic view of the image, including white
balance, exposure, and DOF (which unlike DOF preview is not so dark
as to be unusable).

With some more resolution, a "high gain" mode and some internal
magnifier for focusing aid, the EVF will be completely superior to
an optical viewfinder in just about every respect. Already it is
superior in some respects.

Plus the EFV can provide a much better heads-up platform for
displaying camera settings.

If you want to deprive yourself of those advances today and in the
future, and if in 5 years they still make digital cameras with
optical viewfinders, good luck to you.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

 

[gLeckenby]

I use a Hoodman shield on the LCD on my E10 and really would prefer to have the better eye coupling and exposure information that an EVF gives. Don't get me wrong the SLR is one of the reasons that I have an E10. But...!

 

[Andrew Harvey]

Sean,

I'm with you on this one. Who needs to put the camera to your eye to be able to see the camera settings, especially when the display of those settings interferes with the scene in the viewfinder. All you need are a few basic pieces of information such as shutter speed and aperture, the sort of info that SLRs have been displaying since before I had my first camera 30 years ago. If you are using your camera correctly you should know what settings you are using anyway. You should even be able to approximate such information as DOF too if you know the basics of photography, why do you need a DOF preview?. The same goes for White Balance too - you should know your camera. How clumsy it must be to have the camera against your eye and then have to use your fingers to change settings.

Until EVF viewfinders are the same pixel dimensions as the CCD sensor that is capturing the image they will never be as clear as an optical viewfinder which, if you think about it, has a resolution an order of magnitude greater than the CCD.

No, give me an optical viewfinder any day and I will leave EVF viewfinders for the point-and-shoot snapshot brigade. I don't feel deprived at all - quite the opposite.

Andy.

The EFV gives you a TTL, dynamic view of the image, including white
balance, exposure, and DOF (which unlike DOF preview is not so dark
as to be unusable).

Its not TTL, its through the lens,ccd,electronics and small lcd.

With some more resolution, a "high gain" mode and some internal
magnifier for focusing aid, the EVF will be completely superior to
an optical viewfinder in just about every respect. Already it is
superior in some respects.

except 1... seeing the scene exactly as it looks to your eye.

Plus the EFV can provide a much better heads-up platform for
displaying camera settings.

If you want to deprive yourself of those advances today and in the
future, and if in 5 years they still make digital cameras with
optical viewfinders, good luck to you.

I will "deprive" myself of the amazing evf, today and 5 years from
now, and I will continue to see the light that enters the lens.
Good luck to you as well.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

 

[SeanU]

Leo,

I have no doubts that an EVF is usable. All I'm saying is that all of the advantages are available on the larger lcd panel on the back of most non SLR digicams, with the one downside being bright daylight viewing. I'd personally prefer to use the big LCD and having a real optical TTL viewfinder. I'm not trying to cause a fight, just stating my opinion.

Now what would be really cool... an optical viewfinder that can overlay other info on demand (histogram especially).

The EFV gives you a TTL, dynamic view of the image, including white
balance, exposure, and DOF (which unlike DOF preview is not so dark
as to be unusable).

With some more resolution, a "high gain" mode and some internal
magnifier for focusing aid, the EVF will be completely superior to
an optical viewfinder in just about every respect. Already it is
superior in some respects.

Plus the EFV can provide a much better heads-up platform for
displaying camera settings.

If you want to deprive yourself of those advances today and in the
future, and if in 5 years they still make digital cameras with
optical viewfinders, good luck to you.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

--

 

[Peter G]

The main reason I want an SLR is for the Reflex view through the lens view, not interchangable lenses.

I have tried focusing the Dimage D7 and Sony 707. It is far from ideal.

Also not too happy the DSLR lack split prism focus like on my Grandma's AE-1. Focusing that camera is a dream.

EVF may be good enough "eventually", but that is a long way off IMO.

Peter

Mike Johnston speculates in his August 4 column "Photokina 2002 and
the Olydak" ( http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/08042002.html )
about how a future SLR should function. Does it need a reflex
mirror? Is it necessary, when you can read off the ccd itself?
Sharp has announced a new product: Sharp VL-DD10, which is a big
LCD screen on which you can attach either a digical (4 MP) camera
or a videocamera

( http://www.digit.no/Nyheter/Kameraer/ny_sharp_vldd10-filer/ny_sharp_vldd10.htm ). (Or even a tv-tuner!).
It will be interesting to see how the Sharp-contraption performs in
test when and if it reaches so far. It is supposed to be released
in August this year.
But the Idea is interesting: Instead of thinking af a SLR with
interchangeable lenses you could have a body with swivel screen
(someting like a G2) to which you could attach all sorts of lenses:
A compact wide angle for the pocketable carry along camera, and big
zoms (with manual zoom rings!) for sports etc. It would have the
features of a SLR but could work without the need for a mecanical
mirror, which means smaller, lighther and less noicy than a SLR.
--
Ole

 

[Dan Wajnman]

I fully agree. Give me 'reflex view', as big and bright as possible. And a split prism manual focusing, can't really live without it.

The uncluttered 'reflex view' is superior in many ways. Among them there are aspects oft of esthetics and of pleasure and excitement. When I photograph beautiful things I want to see them in their beauty at that moment. A woman's smile in the resolution of my eye and without a histogram across. It is more fun, isn't it?

Cheers,
Dan

I have tried focusing the Dimage D7 and Sony 707. It is far from
ideal.

Also not too happy the DSLR lack split prism focus like on my
Grandma's AE-1. Focusing that camera is a dream.

EVF may be good enough "eventually", but that is a long way off IMO.

Peter

Mike Johnston speculates in his August 4 column "Photokina 2002 and
the Olydak" ( http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/08042002.html )
about how a future SLR should function. Does it need a reflex
mirror? Is it necessary, when you can read off the ccd itself?
Sharp has announced a new product: Sharp VL-DD10, which is a big
LCD screen on which you can attach either a digical (4 MP) camera
or a videocamera

( http://www.digit.no/Nyheter/Kameraer/ny_sharp_vldd10-filer/ny_sharp_vldd10.htm ). (Or even a tv-tuner!).
It will be interesting to see how the Sharp-contraption performs in
test when and if it reaches so far. It is supposed to be released
in August this year.
But the Idea is interesting: Instead of thinking af a SLR with
interchangeable lenses you could have a body with swivel screen
(someting like a G2) to which you could attach all sorts of lenses:
A compact wide angle for the pocketable carry along camera, and big
zoms (with manual zoom rings!) for sports etc. It would have the
features of a SLR but could work without the need for a mecanical
mirror, which means smaller, lighther and less noicy than a SLR.
--
Ole

 

[Glenn Anderson]

Olympus has already used a prism in the E-10/E-20 to allow an
optical TTL viewfinder that provides a live CCD image. This seems
to be the best compromise. The camera is also very quiet because
there is no mirror to move. The downside is that the viewfinder is
not as bright as a traditional SLR and light can leek into the
system through the eyepiece (there is a switch to close the
eyepiece). There will always be people who prefer a bright optical
viewfinder over an electronic one.

One advantage of the prism approach in an interchangable lens SLR would be that it would reduce/elimate the issue of dust getting on the sensor. The prism, unlike the sensor, would not have a static charge that tends to attract dust. What dust does settle on the prism, would be far enough away from the sensor so as not to appear on the image, sort of like dust on the rear element of the lens. Also the prism would be easier to clean and stand up to cleaning much more than the CCD.

As to light coming in via the eyepiece...

First I don't believe it causes any problems directly for the sensor, the light coming in would be directed out through the lens, not to the sensor.

The problem that is created by light coming in through the viewfinder is that it can affect the autoexposure sensors, and as a result under-expose the image. This problem exists with SLR's with mirrors as well.

 

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi Glenn,

It does have an effect on the sensor in my E-20, it shows up in the image as a cloudy/ghostly area around the bottom centre of the image, looks a bit like film that has been in a camera that is less than lightproof. It mainly happens on long exposure night shots, I don't think there's a problem on daytime shots since the light coming through the main lens is enough to overpower it. I don't know whether it affects the auto exposure sensors as I normally use Manual for long exposure night shots. Obviously the beam splitter/prism used inside the E-20 is able to reflect some eyepiece light back into the sensor as well as out through the lens. It is completely eliminated by closing the provided eyepiece shutter.

Andy.

As to light coming in via the eyepiece...
First I don't believe it causes any problems directly for the
sensor, the light coming in would be directed out through the lens,
not to the sensor.
The problem that is created by light coming in through the
viewfinder is that it can affect the autoexposure sensors, and as a
result under-expose the image. This problem exists with SLR's with
mirrors as well.

 

[SeanU]

Glenn,

In the Case of the E-10/E-20 light entering the eyepiece can affect the metering and the actual image. I don't have an example online to show you, but it is a well know (but minor) problem with the camera that I have experienced first hand. You get an overexposed circle in the middle of the image.

Sean

As to light coming in via the eyepiece...
First I don't believe it causes any problems directly for the
sensor, the light coming in would be directed out through the lens,
not to the sensor.
The problem that is created by light coming in through the
viewfinder is that it can affect the autoexposure sensors, and as a
result under-expose the image. This problem exists with SLR's with
mirrors as well.

 

[Peter G]

One advantage of the prism approach in an interchangable lens SLR
would be that it would reduce/elimate the issue of dust getting on
the sensor. The prism, unlike the sensor, would not have a static
charge that tends to attract dust. What dust does settle on the
prism, would be far enough away from the sensor so as not to appear
on the image, sort of like dust on the rear element of the lens.
Also the prism would be easier to clean and stand up to cleaning
much more than the CCD.

I am not certain if it is an issue, but since nothing is free, I assume with a prism you lose light to the viewfinder and also lose light to the sensor. Light is precious, I don't want to waste any. Not only that but there may be additional degredation in the optic path from light passing through the prism. I would take a mirror any day.

The ideal solution IMO. Is putting in a Sensor that can handle live preview. Then all you need is a mirror lockup switch. You can then switch back and forth between live LCD and SLR viewfinder at will. Full light to the sensor or full light to the viewfinder. Not half to each.

Peter

 

[Edwaste]

the evf is cr*p compared to a camera like the e-10/20 optical
finder/lcd combo. I can get the best of both worlds with that
camera. Other slrs have no live preview, but its no big loss for me.

I will "deprive" myself of the amazing evf, today and 5 years from
now, and I will continue to see the light that enters the lens.
Good luck to you as well.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

I use the LCD, and the next camera I'll buy will probably use a EVF. I like seeing a preview of my exposure before I hit the shutter.

If I want to see the light that enters the lens....duh, .....I'll just move my face from the camera.

Why should accept split prism that robs my lens speed, and gives me a dim optical view. And why should I pay for all those mechaical parts for reflex viewing, and no previsualization of my exposure?

 

[SeanU]

If I want to see the light that enters the lens....duh, .....I'll
just move my face from the camera.

I guess you can pull your filter off and hold it up to your eye as well. Maybe you can tell what your camera is focused on without looking through the camera, but I sure can't.

Why should accept split prism that robs my lens speed, and gives me
a dim optical view. And why should I pay for all those mechaical
parts for reflex viewing, and no previsualization of my exposure?

You don't have to... I am willing to because I think it adds to the experience.

I guess having an opinion here is not allowed... I apologize to everyone, and I will keep my opinions to myself from now on.

Sean